首页> 外文OA文献 >Achieving Good Outcomes for Asthma Living (GOAL): mixed methods feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a practical intervention for eliciting, setting and achieving goals for adults with asthma
【2h】

Achieving Good Outcomes for Asthma Living (GOAL): mixed methods feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a practical intervention for eliciting, setting and achieving goals for adults with asthma

机译:实现哮喘患者的良好结局(GOAL):混合方法的可行性和针对引起,设定和实现哮喘成年目标的实用干预措施的中试集群随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background/aims  Despite being a core component of self-management, goal setting is rarely used in routine care. We piloted a primary care, nurse-led intervention (GOAL) for adults with asthma. Patients were invited to identify and prioritise their goals in preparation for discussing and negotiating an action/coping plan with the nurse at a routine asthma review. Methods The 18-month mixed-methods feasibility cluster pilot trial stratified then randomised practices to deliver usual care (UC) or a goal-setting intervention (GOAL). Practice asthma nurses and adult patients with active asthma were invited to participate. Primary outcome was asthma-specific quality-of-life. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive patient sample (n=14) and 10 participating nurses explored GOAL perception. The constructs of Normalization Process Theory (NPT) were used to analyse and interpret data. Results Ten practices participated (5 in each arm) exceeding our target of eight. However, only 48 patients (target 80) were recruited (18 in GOAL practices). At six months post-intervention, the difference in mean asthma-related quality-of-life (mini-AQLQ) between intervention and control was 0.1 [GOAL 6.20: SD 0.76(CI 5.76–6.65) versus UC 6.1: SD 0.81(CI 5.63–6.57)], less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5. However, change from baseline was stronger in the intervention group: at six months the change in the emotions sub-score was 0.8 for intervention versus 0.2 for control. Costs were higher in the intervention group by £22.17. Routine review with goal-setting was considered more holistic, enhancing rapport and enabling patients to become active rather than passive participants in healthcare. However, time was a major barrier for nurses who admitted screening-out patient goals they believed were unrelated to asthma. Conclusions The difference in AQLQ score from baseline is larger in the intervention arm than the control, indicating the intervention may have impact if appropriately strengthened. The GOAL intervention changed the review dynamic and was well received by patients, but necessitated additional time, which was problematic in the confines of the traditional nurse appointment. Modification to recruitment methods and further development of the intervention are needed before proceeding to a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial was registered on the ISRCTN register (ISRCTN 18912042) on 26th June 2012.
机译:背景/目标尽管目标设定是自我管理的核心组成部分,但在常规护理中很少使用目标设定。我们试点了针对成人哮喘的初级保健,以护士为主导的干预措施(GOAL)。邀请患者确定并优先考虑他们的目标,以准备在常规哮喘检查中与护士讨论并商讨行动/应对计划。方法这项为期18个月的混合方法可行性群集试点试验分层然后随机化以提供常规护理(UC)或目标设定干预(GOAL)。邀请了哮喘练习护士和成年活动性哮喘患者参加。主要结局是特定于哮喘的生活质量。对有目的的患者样本(n = 14)和10名参与的护士进行半结构式访谈,探讨了对目标的认识。使用规范化过程理论(NPT)的结构来分析和解释数据。结果参加了十次练习(每组五个),超过了我们八个目标。但是,仅招募了48位患者(目标80)(在GOAL实践中为18位)。干预后六个月,干预与对照之间的平均哮喘相关生活质量(mini-AQLQ)差异为0.1 [目标6.20:SD 0.76(CI 5.76–6.65)与UC 6.1:SD 0.81(CI) 5.63–6.57)],小于最小临床重要差异(MCID)0.5。但是,干预组的基线水平变化更强:六个月时,情绪子评分的变化为0.8,对照组为0.2。干预组的费用高出£22.17。具有目标设定的例行检查被认为是更全面,更融洽的关系,并使患者能够成为主动而非被动的医疗参与者。但是,时间是护士的主要障碍,他们承认筛选出他们认为与哮喘无关的患者目标。结论干预组的AQLQ得分与基线的差异大于对照组,这表明如果适当加强干预措施可能会产生影响。 GOAL干预改变了复查动态,并受到患者的欢迎,但需要额外的时间,这在传统护士任命的范围内是有问题的。在进行确定的整群随机对照试验之前,需要修改募集方法并进一步发展干预措施。该试验已于2012年6月26日在ISRCTN寄存器(ISRCTN 18912042)上进行了注册。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号